Ferenc,
When you write to
"Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY >"
it means that ALL of us are "addressees" of your posting. That means
that ANY and ALL of us are equally invited to produce a comment on it.
When we write anything in Hungarian, we provide a translation. It is
common courtesy to an English-language list. Kindly follow that
unwritten rule. No more snide remarks, either, in ANY language! The
people on this list ARE civilized. We expect others to act in kind.
I know that you wanted to make a strong statement, but it was quite
unnecessary to post the same thing TWICE.
Having stated that, I shall stop my futile correspondence with you. I have
no time to waste. Please feel free to follow my example.
Have a good day - and get a life, before it is too late.
Martha

Dear colleagues,
If anyone of you has the book A Magyarsag Keletkezese by L. Makkay, I w
o
uld be
most grateful if he/she could pass along place, date of publication and chronol
o
gy.
I want to make a full bibliographical reference in my book, and I have
o
nly kno
wn of it and supported views indirectly and I have been unable to find those de
t
ails.
Regards,
Panagiotis Antonopoulos

Archive-name: hungarian/pointer
Soc-culture-magyar-archive-name: pointer
Bit-listserv-hungary-archive-name: pointer
Version: 0.90 (beta)
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: 1995/11/21
URL: http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/hungarian-faq-pointer
This document summarizes network-related resources of Hungarian
interest, which are accessible via email. Some of the most readily
available sources of information can be found in the archives of
periodical information postings to Usenet; these documents are commonly
known as FAQs (from Frequently Asked/Answered Questions). Knowing the
name of the file you can retrieve it by sending email to
with the command "send
usenet/news.answers/<ARCHIVE-NAME>" in the message (without the quotes,
and with substituting the actual name for <ARCHIVE-NAME> in the pattern
shown above) - for example, to get the document described below, use
send usenet/news.answers/hungarian-faq
To learn more about the RTFM server just send the command "help" to it
- it will provide step-by-step intstructions on how to use the
archives, on retrieving indexes and so on.
"Hungarian electronic resources FAQ" is a comprehensive collection
dealing with email, FTP, WWW and other Internet tools; its archive name
is 'hungarian-faq' (and the mail-server command to get it is shown in
the example above).
If you only have direct access to email then, in order to use the
other tools, you'll need the methods described in "Accessing The
Internet By E-Mail" (Archive-name:
internet-services/access-via-email).
To get a general introduction to Usenet (with some guides to Internet
as well - and explanation of how they are different, too) see "Welcome
to news.newusers.questions!" (Archive-name: news-newusers-intro).
For a guide to finding someone's e-mail addresses, see the "FAQ: How
to find people's E-mail addresses" (Archive-name: finding-addresses).
Do notice that it's usually inappropriate to send such blanket requests
to mailing lists; the search tools available give much better chance to
locate addresses sought than posted queries in any case!
An overview of commercial on-line services in Hungary is available by
John Horvath >
(Archive-name: hungarian/comm-providers).
The hungarian-faq describes several email lists related to Hungary;
only a brief summary is shown here. Please keep in mind that
subscription requests (and other administrative communications) should
be directed to the server address, NOT to the lists themselves.
Server:
List: (the HUNGARY LISTSERV list)
Server:
List: HOL (Hungary Online)
Server:
List: hungary-report
Server:
Lists: OMRI-L (Open Media Research Institute Daily Digest)
MIDEUR-L (Middle European discussion list)
Server:
List: cet-online (Central Europe Today On-Line; email )
Server:
List: CERRO-L (Central European Regional Research Organization)
Server: email to (Hollosi Information Exchange)
Lists: HIX is a collection of several separate lists, including
- MOZAIK, a collection of news items in English
- various discussion forums in Hungarian language
- SCM and HUNGROUPS, which are email-accessible archives of the Usenet
newsgroup soc.culture.magyar and the hun.* national hierarchy,
respectively; to get a directory listing of these archives (as well
as that of other HIX lists), send email to with
"arch" in the 'Subject:' line. Note that the SENDDOC utility takes
its parameter from the 'Subject:' of the message (unlike many other
servers, like the ones described previously, which use the body)!
Note that this document is available on the
<http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/&gt; homepage for the "Hungarian
electronic resources FAQ" at the HIX WWW-server.
The latter also provides access for the full FAQ via
'finger ', and for this brief pointer you are
reading via 'finger ' (notice that you
will likely need to redirect the output to a pager or a file in order
to read it). The Usenet archive name for this document is
hungarian/pointer .
--
Zoli , keeper of <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/&gt;
<'finger '>
NOTE: spamsters and bulk emailers see 'X-Policy*:' in the
header for the charges to be imposed for net abuse!

Instead of quoting extensively again from previous correspondence on
the question of "Szovjetpartizanarpibacsi" I will here simply reiterate the
background. Andras Kornai said that "without extensive gloss" one cannot
really translate this made-up word, describing Arpad Go:ncz, the president
of the Hungarian Republic. I offered such gloss. I explained that both
adjectives, "Soviet," and "partisan," were inappropriate to describe Go:ncz.
And I explained why.
But Ferenc Novak is not satisfied. He writes:
>No, I was merely helping Andras translate something that he found too>difficult to translate. Yes, he called it bloodcurdling, in effect hinting>that the "word" had something mysteriously evil, sinister or profane about>it, as well as being "ungrammatical". Now this is a prime example of>"csusztatas", if you will. I did not express an opinion about the word,>merely supplied a translation for the benefit of those who don't read>Hungarian.
Well, let me try it again. I very much doubt that in technical terms
Andras had difficulty translating this made-up word. Anyone with a
smattering of English and having a dictionary at his side can do that.
Andras's emphasis was not on the technical side of translation but on the
*extensive gloss* it would take to understand the real meaning behind the
simple translation. For anyone not thoroughly familiar with Hungarian
history, anyone not familiar with Go:ncz's background a simple translation
would be meaningless, although the translation, word for word, was accurate.
In case Ferenc doesn't quite understand the meaning of "gloss," let
me quote the dictionary definition of it: "gloss [ME glosse, fr. L. glossa
--unusual word requiring explanation.] Brief explanation of a difficult or
obscure word or expression.
>I find it strange that in one issue of Hungary I got two responses not from>the addressees of my comments, but by self-appointed proxies. Since>reference was made (by Aniko' and Martha) to a Hungarian saying, may I offer>one of my own here? It begins: "Fogadatlan prokatornak...
Martha already answered this paragraph. Anyone on the list has the
right to answer your letter, especially since it seems that Andras hasn't
been around the computer for the last few days.
Your second, Hungarian-language note was obviously misaddressed. You
were actually planning to send it to the FORUM. But what I don't understand
is the following: why do you think that Gyorgy Ilsovszky actually talked
about you. Perhaps Hosszu's first name is Ferenc.
Eva Balogh

--============_-1376421352==_============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
--============_-1376421352==_============
Content-Type: text/plain; name="St_Catharine_speech=text"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="St_Catharine_speech=text"
Peter I. Hidas
The Hungarian Refugees of 1956: Who Were They?
The Hungarian refugees who began to pour into Austria after the
reoccupation of all of Hungary by the Red Army constituted a cross-section
of Hungarian society. In 1957 the Hungarian government's Central
Statistical Bureau (KSH) prepared a detailed report on persons who had left
Hungary illegally between 23 October 1956 and 30 April 1957. This report
was reprinted and was made accessible to the public for the first time in
1991.
The Hungarian police, according the KSH report, counted 151,731 persons
who left Hungary illegally from the end of October 1956 to May 1957. That
number constituted 1.5% of the population of Hungary. More than half of
them were originally residents of Budapest and another 19% lived in other
towns. Two thirds of the refugees were males, one third female. The
proportion of women who fled Budapest was higher than that of those who
left from the rest of the country. More than half of the refugees were
under 25 years of age. Nearly one third of the "dissidents", the term used
in the document, were between 25 and 39 years old. Fewer than 12% fell into
the 40 to 59 years old group while the 60 and over sixty group constituted
less than one per cent of the refugees. Consequently Hungary lost three
percent of its 15 to 39 years old population, 4.1% of the 15 to 19 group.
Persons of military age left in high number. Men in their twenties who
defected constituted 10.3% of their cohorts, the 19 years old group, 9.3%.
The youth of Budapest departed in large number. Fifteen out of every
hundred left from the 15-24 group. The highest proportion of refugees came
from the 5th, 6th and 7th districts of the capital where most of the
white-collar workers, intellectuals and Jews lived.
Two-thirds of the refugees were formerly employed, while 1/3 of them we
r
e
supported. White-collar workers constituted 25% of the refugee population,
3.3% of their cohorts. One half of the blue-collar workers were skilled
industrial labourers, 4.2% of their cohorts. Two-thirds of the white-collar
workers were intellectuals, numbering 17,000. Amongst them the largest
number were the engineers, almost 11% of the Hungarian total. 730 doctors
left, five out of every hundred. One half of the refugees in the
"supported" category consisted of students. College and university students
numbered 3,200, 11.2% of the Hungarian total.
By the end of May 1957, 11,447 Hungarians had returned to Hungary, near
l
y
six per cent of the total of 193,885. 2/5 of the returnees came from
Austria, 1/5 from Yugoslavia. The refugees returned in the highest
proportion from Belgium. More men returned than did women, more from the 15
to 19 and the over 60 groups. Only two percent of the intellectuals but
seven per cent of the farmers repatriated. Farmers left Hungary in the
smallest number: 0.4% of them.
According to Canada's Statistics Section of the Department of Citizens
h
ip
and Immigration by May 1, 1958, the number of Hungarian refugees who were
granted Canadian landing right was 35,914, one out of every five who had
left Hungary. The Statistical Section compiled demographic data on the new
Canadians. The comparing and the contrasting of the demographic data of
refugees leaving Hungary and those from the same group who than left for
Canada is possible with the two sets of data made available.
A major difference emerges between the two groups in the 15 to 19 age
group. Almost 20% of the defectors are in this category while only 11.3%
(4,057) of the Hungarian refugees in Canada were in this group. Canadian
immigration authorities were careful not to accept unaccompanied teenagers
which may account for this discrepancy. The profile of both groups,
emigrant-refugees and immigrant-refugees is identical, 54% of the over 15
groups were males, 46% were females. This ratio varies in certain age
groups as reported in 1958. In the 20 to 24 group 84% of the men were
single, but only 37% of the women. In the 25 to 29 group half the men were
single as compared with 17% of the women. In the collegeage category,
20-24, females constituted only 29% (1,310) of the refugee-immigrants.
=46ewer than 3% of all the men were divorced or separated, for women the
number was under 5%. In the 25 to 29 age group 46% of the men and 76% of
the women were married. Between 35 and 39 men reaches the same percentage.
The figures indicate that Canada obtained a family-oriented group of
immigrants.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
TABLE 1
Hungarian Refugees Granted Landing
Age Group, Sex and Marital Status
Eighteen Months ended April 30, 1958
AGE GROUP GRAND MALES SINGLE FEMALES SINGLE
TOTAL TOTAL MALES TOTAL FEMALES
0 - 4 1,876 1,029 1029 847 847
5 - 9 2,160 1,155 1,155 1,005 1,005
10 - 14 1,859 1,014 1,014 845 845
15 - 19 4,057 2,747 2,689 1,310 943
20 - 24 7,858 5,575 4,655 2,283 834
25 - 29 5,870 3,835 1,916 2,035 342
30 - 34 4,508 2,751 774 1,757 183
35 - 39 3,059 1,775 299 1,284 105
40 - 44 1,951 1,220 137 731 50
45 - 49 1,498 988 81 510 35
50 - 59 313 168 6 145 10
60 - 64 142 64 3 78 2
65 - 69 50 19 3 31 1
70 and over 26 10 1 16 1=09
Source: National Archives of Canada, RG 76, Box 863, File 555-54-565, vol.5
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
TABLE 2
Hungarian Male Refugees Granted Landing
Age Group and Marital Status
Eighteen Months ended April 30, 1958
AGE TOTAL SINGLE MAR. WID. DIV. SEP.
GROUP
0 - 4 1,029 1,029 .. .. .. ..
5 - 9 1,155 1,155 .. .. .. ..
10 - 14 1,014 1,014 .. .. .. ..
15 - 19 2,747 2,689 58 .. .. ..
20 - 24 5,575 4,655 877 4 21 18
25 - 29 3,835 1,916 1,758 10 94 57
30 - 34 2,751 774 1,793 12 120 52
35 - 39 1,775 299 1,347 9 94 26
40 - 44 1,220 137 981 16 64 22
45 - 49 988 81 833 6 43 25
50 - 54 414 30 355 11 8 10
55 - 59 168 6 146 8 7 1
60 - 64 64 3 49 9 2 1
65 - 69 19 3 13 2 1 ..
70 and over 10 1 6 3 .. ..
total 22,764 13,792 8,216 90 454 212
Source: National Archives of Canada, RG 76, Box 863, File 555-54-565, vol.5
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
=09
TABLE 3
Hungarian Female Refugees Granted Landing
Age Group and Marital Status
Eighteen Months ended April 30, 1958
AGE TOTAL SINGLE MAR. WID. DIV. SEP.
GROUP
0 - 4 847 847 .. .. .. ..
5 - 9 1,005 1,005 .. .. .. ..
10 - 14 845 845 .. .. .. ..
15 - 19 1,310 943 362 3 1 1
20 - 24 2,283 834 1,365 9 56 19
25 - 29 2,035 342 1,550 14 95 34
30 - 34 1,757 183 1,422 22 103 27
35 - 39 1,284 105 1,031 46 80 22
40 - 44 731 50 567 37 56 21
45 - 49 510 35 379 54 36 6=09
50 - 54 273 15 169 57 22 10
55 - 59 145 10 70 52 11 2
60 - 64 78 2 27 43 5 1
65 - 69 31 1 8 22 .. ..
70 and over 16 1 2 11 1 ..
total 13,150 5,218 6,952 370 466 144
Source: National Archives of Canada, RG 76, Box 863, File 555-54-565, vol.5
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Officials in Ottawa initially thought that a large percentage of the
refugees were women and children, including orphans. In the female age
group 0 to 14 the ratio of girls was only one third of the boys in same
category. More Hungarian parents with sons had decided to emigrate at this
time than those with young daughters. More concern for the future of sons'
careers, and the fear of the draft, may explain this preference. The case
of the Hungarian orphans particularly captured the imagination of the
world, including Canada. Argentina offered to take 4,000 Hungarian orphans.
External Affairs in Ottawa was flooded with request for orphaned Hungarian
children. Before any action could be taken the Toronto paper of the
Hungarian community, Kanadai Magyars=E1g, demanded that all the orphans
should go to Hungarian families. Despite all efforts made, the Canadian Red
Cross was unable to locate orphans. There were none.
The occupational profile of the emigrant-refugees and the
immigrant-refugees is also similar although since different categories were
employed by Canadian and Hungarian statisticians, the comparison is
difficult to execute. Canadian authorities registered 10,297 Hungarian
refugees, 45.6% of the group destined for the labour force, in the
"manufacturing and mechanical" column. There were 578 miners among the
refugee-immigrants, 2.6% of persons from the occupational groups. Other
industrial labourers, 4,128, made up 18.3% of the industrial group. These
three groups totalled 66.5%, almost matching the KSH figure of 63.5%.
Professionals constituted 8% (1,811 persons) of the immigrant-refugee
working group. The KSH number is 6,641 or 6.5% of the emigrant-refugee
working group. Canada received about 20% of all the Hungarian refugees but
benefited from a larger share of the skilled industrial workers and
professionals.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------> -----------------------------------------
TABLE 4
Hungarian Refugees Granted Landing
by Major Occupational Groups
Eighteen Months ended April 30, 1958
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Destined to the Labour Force % of to
t
al workers
managerial 2 -
professional 1,811 8.0
clerical 825 3.6
transportation 739 3.3
communication 45 .2
commercial 235 1.0
service 2,429 10.7
agricultural 1,356 6.0
fishing, trapping, logging 64 .3
mining 578 2.6
manufacturing and mechanical 10,297 45.6
labourers 4,128 18.3
not stated 91 .4
total 22,598
source: NAC, RG 76, Box 863, File 555-54-565, vol.5
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
The religious affiliation of the population of Hungary was not accounte
d
for by the censuses during the Communist regime. The division of the
Hungarians into 2/3 Catholics and 1/3 Protestants is generally accepted. As
a result of the Holocaust the Jewish population dropped from close to five
per cent to less than one after 1945. There is no direct source concerning
the religion of the Hungarian refugees of 1956.
The Canadian Jewish Congress was informed on 23 November 1957 that amon
g
st
the Hungarian refugees there were 2,000 Jews in Vienna, of whom 1,200 had
registered with Jewish relief agencies. Later a report was received from
the Joseph Kage estimated the number of Jews who left Hungary in 1956/57
at 20,000, that is, 20% of the Hungarian Jewish community. The Israeli
ambassador in Vienna ventured the figure of 15,000. Using a small sample,
JIAS workers estimated the number of Hungarian Jews who would not register
as Jews at 50%. Another Jewish agency, UHIAS, reported that, by the end of
1956, 10,046 Hungarian Jews registered as Jews but they estimated that
another 2,500 did not register. By 23 January 1957 the number registered
with UHIAS grew to 13,163 and the Canada-bound to 2,449.
The Statistics Section of the Department of Citizenship and Immigratio
n
in its tri-monthly report on January 31, 1957 identified 8,832 Hungarians
and 683 "Hebrews" out of a total of 9,572. Jews then constituted 7.1% of
the total (9,572). The ratio changed to 6.6% by May 31, 6.8% on August 31
and December 31, 1957 and April 30, 1958.
When the refugees arrived in Canada immigration officers recorded the
ethnic origin of the new-comers but not their religion. The Department of
Immigration identified Hungarian Jews as "Hebrews." Later they changed the
category to "Jewish" which they considered separate from the category
"Hungarian". Hungarian Jews generally considered themselves to be of
Hungarian ethnic origin of the Jewish faith. A Vancouver journalist
reported in January 1957: "Here in Vancouver we can confirm the fact that
some of the Hungarian refugees have been afraid to reveal their identity as
Jews. There have been several who had listed themselves as Catholics but
disclosed that they were Jews after being absolutely sure that there was no
danger of any repercussions." Fear of anti-Semitism, fear of persecution,
the traditional identification with Hungarians, the traditional separation
of nationality from religious affiliation, and anti-religious propaganda and
education in Hungary for close to ten years made many Hungarian Jews refuse
to reveal their religion or religious origin. How else can one account for
the figure of Professor Dirks, being 20%? Professor N. Dreisziger's figure
of 7,000 is probably closest to the truth.
The refugees were fleeing from Communism. There were few amongst them w
h
o
participated in the fighting. All feared the restoration of the old regime
for political and economic reasons. Few believed that the process could be
reversed and freedom and democracy might be established in Hungary within a
short time. In the opinion of the Canadian ambassador in Vienna,
J.S.Macdonald, however, the great bulk of the refugees had no desire to go
so far away as America or Australia. "Our experience so far," he reported
to Ottawa, " is that most of them are thinking in terms of returning to
their homes as soon as the fighting is over." It is thought that perhaps
fifty percent will wish to return to their homes when conditions settle
down. Macdonald believed that most of the refugees were apolitical working
people with a sprinkling of ex-industrialists and professional men.
Macdonald rejected the generally accepted view that the Hungarians were
fleeing Soviet terror. He told Ottawa that "The popular picture built up by
the journalists - of a beaten and defeated people fleeing from Soviet
terror toward the West in search of economic and political freedom - does
not, it seems to me, correspond very closely with reality." He had a
discussion with an Austrian official representing the Burgermeister in
Wiener Neustadt: "...with migration cut off for the last sixteen or
seventeen years, there is a great pressure to get out, quite apart from the
form of government or living conditions in Hungary. The movement is
doubtless accentuated by the civil war and the accompanying confusion but
in his view the demographic forces are stronger than the political or the
economic....this is a view I had not heard advanced previously but one to
which I think some weight has to be given." Dr. Lindt, UN High Commissioner
for Refugees stated that the initial flight from Hungary had been chiefly
of political refugees; those who followed were mainly economic refugees. A
number of the refugees evaded the camps and have engaged in undesirable
economic activities in Austria, including prostitution and
black-marketeering. A few criminals who escaped from Hungarian jails during
the revolution were involved in the forgery of Austrian currency. In
January 1957 the Vienna Visa Section informed Ottawa that in their view
half of the Hungarians were politically unreliable and many were in ill
health. These falsification aimed at the slowing down of the refugee flow
to Canada.
Despite the occasionally distorted reports emanating from certain Canad
i
an
diplomats with unfriendly attitudes towards some or all Hungarian refugees,
Ottawa was able to obtain a clear picture of the situation. Canada
eventually admitted over 20% of the Hungarian refugees. The country gained
as a result of Hungary's brain drain. The nearly 40,000 fifty-sixers who
arrived in Canada were mainly of urban origin, young, single, healthy, well
educated and highly skilled. About 60% of them were Roman Catholics, the
rest were Protestants (20%) and Jews (20%). Two-third of the fifty-sixers
were male. Few children and few elderly participated in the adventure.
There were one thousand students among the refugees. In 1957/58 one
sixteenth of the increase in the student population of Canada was due to
the presence of the Hungarian refugee students. By the end of the summer of
1957 hardly any of refugees received state support or welfare - they were
hard at work building their personal career, building Canada.
-------------
Peter I. Hidas (B.A.,M.A.,Ph.D.) is a professor in charge of Hungarian
Studies at McGill University, Montreal. He taught history at Dawson College
from 1969 to 1995 and offered various courses at Concordia University,
University of Sherbrooke and Vanier College. His studies on Hungarian
history have been published inCanada, Hungary, Holland, and the United
States. The above study is a chapter of his forthcoming book on "Canada and
the Hungarian Revolution of 1956".
--============_-1376421352==_============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter I. Hidas
Hungarian Studies
Department Of Russian and Slavic Studies
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
--============_-1376421352==_============--

Dear colleagues,
If anyone of you has the book A Magyarsag Keletkezese by L.
Makkay, I would be most grateful if he/she could pass along
place, date of publication and chronology.
I want to make a full bibliographical reference in my book,
and I have only known of it and supported views indirectly and I
have been unable to find those details.
Regards,
Panagiotis Antonopoulos

This week's 'Corporate Citizen of the Week Award' goes to Gabor D. Farkas
for the following example of the politics of simplicity.
>To this I can add: God save the education from teachers' unions that>continuously preach about the level of education but only care about their>members' level of compensation.
Go for it Gabor! Perhaps with divine intervention all those nasty teachers'
unions will finally be brought to heel. And, God willing, maybe you can
tell us the next sector of society you'd like to impoverish.
Joe Szalai

In article >,
says...
>>This week's 'Corporate Citizen of the Week Award' goes to Gabor D. Farkas>for the following example of the politics of simplicity.>>>To this I can add: God save the education from teachers' unions that>>continuously preach about the level of education but only care about their>>members' level of compensation.>>Go for it Gabor! Perhaps with divine intervention all those nasty>teachers' unions will finally be brought to heel. And, God willing,>maybe you can tell us the next sector of society you'd like to impoverish.
I, too, was somewhat taken aback by Gabor's ejaculation! Clearly, it was
made in complete ignorance of what is involved in serious and dedicated
teaching.
George
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy **** NW London Computer Club **** ICPUG